I would never forget the moment I became an atheist - it was somewhere in the middle of the 7th grade, and we had a lesson about the emerging empires in Mesopotamia ( The first time history touches organized religion, at least in my school). I was cautiously believing in christ then. Anyway we were discussing the merits of their religion (sovereign chosen by god, underworld or something like that), and it was all clear that their notion of religion was silly and could never be true, yet they passionately believed it. On top of that it was obvious that the ruling class had invented it to serve it's needs (the sovereign was entitled to his position, so was his family and hairs). And then it struck me, what will be different in say 3-4 thousand years into the future, when in some class a child will be learning about christianity, and discussing it's merits. In that exact moment the whole pillar of belief (which my parents were relentlessly building) crumbled like the WTC.
I became an atheist gradually over my first year of university. That's when I took General Chemistry and realized that science really does work. Then I realized that the Earth really is very old, not 20,000 years old like my parents had taught me. From that point I just had to examine every one of my beliefs and see which ones crumble before the light of reason.
It's been a long process. I'm still discovering beliefs that need examination.
I think the hardest part about losing one's religious beliefs is that the differing belief systems become a barrier the relating to family and friends. And how can one avoid coming across as a know-it-all when talking with folks who are ignorant of science?
"And how can one avoid coming across as a know-it-all when talking with folks who are ignorant of science?"
I don't see any way that science is incompatible with god. If science shows that something is false (eg. the age of the earth) then it is false. Science cannot disprove the existence of god by the very nature of what god is (outside of this reality). Science can show a need for a god or a multiverse, but it can't prove or disprove it.
You make it sound like people who learn about science automatically abandon a belief in the supernatural. There is some comfort to be had in believing that this physical world is the extent of reality, but that doesn't make it true.
Science itself may not have anything to say about religion per se, but a scientific worldview is incompatible with a christian worldview, as a scientific worldview demands evidence and falsifiable claims and a christian one demands the opposite, faith.
> a scientific worldview is incompatible with a christian worldview
I beg to disagree. It is incompatible with the New World Neo-Protestant Christian (Baptist etc) worldview. Most Old-World Churches (Catholic and the church I was raised in, Eastern Orthodox) fully accept scientific discoveries, including evolution. They do not hold the Bible (especially Genesis) to be literally true. Fundamentalist Christians do, they are defined by this. For example, the story of creation from Genesis is understood as a metaphor: the seven days are not literally days, but epochs etc. The metaphor is undestood to have been created to avoid confusing the ancient people. The Creationism debate in the US is watched with disbelief and smirks - don't they have worthier stuff to debate? - and is believed to stem from bigotry and plain anti-intellectual bias. Of course, we Old Worlders (especially Eastern Europeans) have a strong elitist (in the US sense) intelectual bias, like the US East coast. Calling someone ignorant is a very strong insult.
> a scientific worldview demands evidence and falsifiable claims and a christian one demands the opposite, faith.
Christianity has looked for proof since its inception. The Holy Books are nothing more than written testimonies of witnesses (By today's cynical standards, quite weak evidence). All theologians since have looked for logical proofs. Unfortunately, they have not found one. But it would be hasty to ignore the tradition of Christian theology's search for it.
I can't see how you can incorporate a belief (faith) without strong evidence, by your own admission, into a scientific worldview which would demand evidence precede belief.
I agree that some christian sects are more open minded about science than others, but at the end of the day, it's the scientific worldview that doesn't lend itself to the christian worldview, not the other way around.
In rejecting an organized religion, why make a leap to rejecting the entire inquiry? We're already well-into that technological future you imagine. Indeed, we're communicating across the globe at sometimes the speed of light. But the most difficult questions of our humanity still have yet to be answered. I can't see that ever changing save for God incarnate descending (again?). :)
A very influential book for me: A Common Faith by John Dewey - a pragmatic philosopher with a realistic approach and hope.
The real problem, to me, is one of literalism vs. metaphor. I read the Old and New Testaments for insight but not history or science. Some would find that appalling. Others appealing. The choice is mine and ours to believe what we want.
The thing is, if god exists, all is hopeless, because everything is arbitrary (at the whim of said god). Only without a god is there any hope for us humans to make sense of things.
I think in a way the existence of god would be very depressing, because it would make everything meaningless.
There is a caveat to this assertion; If said god is entirely internally consistent, then his whim is no more arbitrary than the laws of nature.
Perhaps this is contained in the definition "God", perhaps this is why religious types are always on about "holiness" (which I have gathered mostly means "internally consistent") .
"In rejecting an organized religion, why make a leap to rejecting the entire inquiry?"
They spoiled it for us.
But if you're serious^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hrational in your inquiry, you'll come to discover that, like Santa Claus, God does not exist, at which point you will also reject the inquiry. All of it.
Belief in God and belief in Santa Claus are not equivalent. There is no reason inherent in usual descriptions of Santa Claus that one would expect him not to show up on radar, for example, so you can take his absence as evidence of nonexistence. While there are a lot of specifics in the Bible that can be similarly tested, the usual view of (non-fundamentalist) Christians today is that the miracles and such aren't necessarily literal, so there's nothing to test: belief in God-the-Creator is a given, and no amount of evidence or reason can legitimately sway a believer to disbelieve, or a non-believer to believe.
Indeed; I'm familiar with this. If you believe in the Christian God, it's possible to rationally assert that no test can prove Him, but that after death everyone will know that He exists.
The simulation argument, linked to recently here, I believe, has much the same features without the religious baggage: there is no experiment you can do which will provide direct evidence that you are, or are not, in a simulation. In the extreme case, the simulators could just stop the sim, back up, and change the outcome of the experiment (or just your perception of the outcome), and continue on.
However, it might still be important to your future survival whether you act as though you are or are not in one, in either case.
Unfortunately, you first have to define something before you can say whether it exists. And a proof for God has remained elusive. Santa Claus I don't know about because I never believed in him (or the Easter Bunny!).
Still, there are some definitions you might offer for God that I'd agree with. And your conclusion would be to reject the existence. Mine would be to ask for better a definition.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.